I assume many will want to do that as well. Do you think a majority of the population will be satisfied with 1 test? Aren't tests coming back 90 percent negative? Haven't looked for info on past flu test negative counts.
I am being tested for antibodies. It's not based on fear but on the need to have an better radar image of the impact of the virus and possible immunity to it.
I assume many will want to do that as well. Do you think a majority of the population will be satisfied with 1 test? Aren't tests coming back 90 percent negative? Haven't looked for info on past flu test negative counts.
statistics are not your forte nancy
let me educate you a bit and you will not embarrass yourself again (hopefully ):
In a population whose infection rate is 5 percent, a test that is 90 percent accurate could deliver a false positive nearly 70 percent of the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/o...-accuracy.html
He did. This changes nothing. He took Clinton, turned her upside down, and shoved her, head first, straight into the earth.
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
& he's President forever, just like the 44 before him.
Put that in your smoke & pipe it, you damn nocker, you.
Oh yeah that's going to be a big victory when Katie girl has to drop you into the mass graves.
- "Don't leave me here."
- Girl
Beats the alternative every day that ends in (y).
90,000 dead / 1,400,000 cases = 6.4% mortality rate for USA, so far
Make up your mind
False positives are something the diagnostics community lives with. Its why they have confirmation testing.
out of your league again
wow you are really one stupid mother er
let me caps it for you
DELIVER FALSE POSITIVES UP TO 70% IF THE TIME
what a moron
Your denominator is WAY off.
Mortality rate from coronavirus or with coronavirus?
Sorry, I can't understand the statistics for you.
In order for you to really understand my point, you will have to understand means, medians, standard deviations, and a host of other concepts from probability and statistics.
Your post here was the equivalent of saying "lol adiabatic process".
We will be able to get pretty close to what it was in reality once we get enough data on mortality and incidence, because we can use that to isolate out the causes of the sudden e in deaths.
The only way that would really not work is if there is some sort of unexplained e in other causes of death.
Are you trying to say that we missed some e in heart attacks or a natural disaster that killed a lot of extra people every day for the last few months?
Indeed.90,000 dead / 1,400,000 cases = 6.4% mortality rate for USA, so far
Sort of a pointless calculation, given how little we are testing.
90000/.0066 implies 13M cases.
We have diagnosed only 1.4M, meaning we are falling farther and farther behind where we really need to be testing wise.
The lag used to be about 7 times, now the lag is almost 10 times
It is spreading faster than we think it is, by a large margin, if this simple calculation is correct.
"make up your mind"
Dude, his first post was about a real test, the second was a hypothetical posed by the op-ed author to make a point about statistics, which was exactly valid. Your rush to ding him, showed you didn't really understand what he posted. Self-pwnage.
Even with a high confidence (hypothetical) test, if only 5% of the population has it then the vast majority of your positives will be false.
If the real test is only 50% accurate, almost all of your positives would be false, and even testing two or three times would still not barely narrow that down to the point of meaninglessness.
Bayes Theorem ftw. I'll let you google that. or not. Plenty of good primers on it in youtube.
I said. You will never figure out the true number of deaths. Which you wont/can't. Then you respond with a deviation of an average. Not sure what you dont get about that.
90,000 dead / 1,400,000 cases = 6.4% mortality
90000 / 0.064 = 1.4M
There are millions of mild/asymptomatic cases that aren't included in your 1.4M denominator.
Some people believe that people who are tested and confirmed as well as those who died that haven't been counted are the only people in the data.
They seemingly forget that over 85 percent of people infected will have mild symptoms. They think that these people do not count. But they also argue that the virus is extremely transmissible. Lots of strange "points" being made
Yeah case fatality rate doesn't tell much if you're not doing at least randomized testing. From NYC's antibody testing COVID19 appeared to have about a 0.5% mortality rate, though that's likely an undercount since it only counts those who have died vs those infected instead of those who have died or will die from infections they already have vs those infected, since the time between first infection and death seems to be around 3-6 weeks for those who die. So a total morality rate of around 0.7% or 0.8% wouldn't surprise me much.
Above, right on cue
nice theory with no facts to back it up
Models needed no theory when 140k beds were needed in ny, or 94 million deaths, inexplicably that was believed.
precautions != facts
? They said that was going to happen. It was facts to them.
This message is hidden because tholdren is on your ignore list.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)